Condoleezza Rice on Iraq War | 03/19/2009 12:50 pm

Condi Rice: 9/11 Not Used for Iraq Invasion (Video)

By The Staff at wowOwow.com

Former Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice appeared on Charlie Rose’s show last night to reflect on her time in the Bush Administration. And, as happens, the conversation turned to the war in Iraq, which began six years ago today.

If you recall, Bush and his team claimed Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction and, further, his regime said the war helped fight "international terrorism." From a White House letter sent on March 18, 2003, via Think Progress:

[The move] is consistent with the United States and other countries continuing to take the necessary actions against international terrorists and terrorist organizations, including those nations, organizations or persons who planned, authorized, committed or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001.

Well, Rice remembers things differently. She told Rose last night that no one believed Hussein had a tie to the 2001 terrorist attacks:

ROSE: But you didn’t believe it had anything to do with 9/11.

RICE: No. No one was arguing that Saddam Hussein somehow had something to do with 9/11.

ROSE: No one.

RICE: I was certainly not. The president was certainly not … That’s right. We were not arguing that.

Perhaps not explicitly, but those attacks definitely provided a backdrop for the invasion.

Here’s video of Rice and Rose’s exchange

139 Reader Comments (so far…) Sign In or Register to comment

Oh be quiet. Funny we seem to hear more from this cabal now than we did when they were running the country into the ground. Even Cheney has come out of his bunker for interviews. If Clinton had done the interview circuit so soon after the election he would have been crucified for it for being crass and disrespectful. I guess when you have a lot to make excuses for, you just can’t follow protocol or the usual etiquette expected from former administrations.

By DeBúrca obj on 03/19/2009 1:03 pm

e-mail alert

No, dear, they just want to get the record straight….there’s a difference. Obama has bashed the Bush administration, the war in Iraq and anything else he can blame on Bush.

It’s time to get the truth out. After the AIG foul up and now 13 firms who received bailouts owing the IRS over $220 million and ACORN pressing to do the census for 2010, we need some good news.

By deber B on 03/19/2009 1:08 pm

e-mail alert

Actually, they are trying to re-write the record — unfortunately, they cannot go back an re-do all the news articles, speeches, and media clips where — at least for myself, I clearly remember after the WMD argument got shown for the lie it was — Chaney and others inferring that we were going after Saddam because of 9/11 ties. The Bush administration are devoid of ethics.

By Z **** on 03/19/2009 1:14 pm

e-mail alert

Z***…I found this article from CNN

http://www.cnn.com/2005/POLITICS/06/29/hayes.911/

It states at the end that Bush didnt say Sadam was linked but a NC Rep did…even McCain said there was no evidence of Sadam being linked to 9/11…

Here is another article…

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=39025

I can’t find where Bush said Sadam was in direct link with 9/11 but did assocaite with terrorists…

By C Hardy on 03/19/2009 1:27 pm

e-mail alert

What about Chaney? I clearly remember Chaney drawing a link.

By Z **** on 03/19/2009 1:36 pm

e-mail alert

Cheney is a slim ball…If I had to pick walking down the street next to the devil or Cheney, I would pick the devil.

By C Hardy on 03/19/2009 2:39 pm

e-mail alert

Amen, sister. =)

By Z **** on 03/19/2009 2:50 pm

e-mail alert

C Hardy……..the problem these people have with re-writing history is that it is all so readily available……I just found the below with a quick Google………..

Al Qaeda-Hussein Link Is Dismissed

By Walter Pincus and Dana Milbank
Washington Post Staff Writers
Thursday, June 17, 2004; Page A01

The Sept. 11 commission reported yesterday that it has found no "collaborative relationship" between Iraq and al Qaeda, challenging one of the Bush administration’s main justifications for the war in Iraq.

Along with the contention that Saddam Hussein was stockpiling weapons of mass destruction, President Bush, Vice President Cheney and other top administration officials have often asserted that there were extensive ties between Hussein’s government and Osama bin Laden’s terrorist network; earlier this year, Cheney said evidence of a link was "overwhelming."

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A47812-2004Jun16.html

Cheney link of Iraq, 9/11 challenged

By Anne E. Kornblut and Bryan Bender , Globe Staff and Globe Correspondent, 9/16/2003

WASHINGTON — Vice President Dick Cheney, anxious to defend the White House foreign policy amid ongoing violence in Iraq, stunned intelligence analysts and even members of his own administration this week by failing to dismiss a widely discredited claim: that Saddam Hussein might have played a role in the Sept. 11 attacks.

http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2003/09/16/cheney_link_of_ira…

By Z **** on 03/19/2009 1:42 pm

e-mail alert

I read that article also and from what I can gather is that all they said is there is a link…were there WMD’s in Iraq, remains of them were when my hubby was there in 2003…when my friend was there in 1990-1991 there was! I have a letter from him stating he is sitting on the border of Kuwait and Iraq watching the Iraqi soldiers making WMD using agent orange and other chimicals…

Now ask me do I think we needed to invade Iraq…No! But I also dont think its very productive to keep going around and around about it. It happened, most know it shouldnt have happened, but it did so we have to live with it. Does it suck, Oh hell yeah it does, but what can we do, leave and leave that country open for terrorists, NO.

It gets old to hear the same stories over and over and over again.

By C Hardy on 03/19/2009 1:49 pm

e-mail alert

And, who brings it up — this time Condi Rice. I have no problem with any volunteers (for instance, say, you) who want to go over and keep Iraq safe from terrorists.

By Z **** on 03/19/2009 1:54 pm

e-mail alert

Seems to me she was asked a question in which she answered…There is noway a volunteer, who is not in the armed forces can go to Iraq and keep them safe…You know that.

By C Hardy on 03/19/2009 2:28 pm

e-mail alert

She was there to "reflect" on her years in the Bush Admin — so how is the conversation not going to turn to the Iraq War?

By Z **** on 03/19/2009 2:48 pm

e-mail alert

We can’t call them terrorists anymore…now we have to be politically correct!! Remember what Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano said!!!

By Libra Lady on 03/19/2009 2:34 pm

e-mail alert

Okay……I’ll bite. =) What should we call them? I’ve been super busy the last few days, so I didn’t hear what Napolitano said.

By Z **** on 03/19/2009 3:16 pm

e-mail alert

DHS Secretary Janet Napolitano was asked about her lack of using the word terrorism in a 16-March interview with Der Speigel. Her reply was … "In my speech, although I did not use the word "terrorism," I referred to "man-caused" disasters. That is perhaps only a nuance, but it demonstrates that we want to move away from the politics of fear toward a policy of being prepared for all risks that can occur."

Maybe I’m letting this P.C. stuff get to me too much but does it bother anyone else this administration won’t use words like "terrorism" and "enemy combatant"..?

By Libra Lady on 03/19/2009 4:23 pm